In Re RES
19 A.3d 785
D.C.2011Background
- D.T. was born in 1995 and removed from her mother’s care in 2001 due to neglect allegations.
- D.F. did not know D.T. existed until a paternity test established him as her father.
- D.F. was incarcerated from 2002 until May 2010 and had limited contact with D.T.
- D.T. resided in six foster placements before being placed with R.E.S. in 2006.
- R.E.S. filed a petition to adopt D.T.; the trial court waived the biological parents’ consent as in D.T.’s best interests.
- On initial appeal, we held D.F. had a statutory right to effective counsel and remanded for a hearing on counsel’s performance; on remand the trial court found no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. | DF argues counsel’s failure to participate and to call witnesses prejudiced the outcome. | R.E.S. contends any deficiency did not prejudice the result given the best interests of the child and substantial evidence against placement with relatives. | Prejudice not shown; no reversal on ineffective assistance. |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed parental preference against child’s best interests. | DF contends weighty consideration was not properly applied or articulated. | R.E.S. argues court properly weighed evidence and that the proposed caretakers were inadequate. | Court properly weighed best interests; no error in applying the standard. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination of the social worker Clausen. | DF claims restricting Clausen’s cross-examination prevented challenging her 2003 assessment. | R.E.S. contends prior testimony and the record supported the court’s discretion to limit further questioning. | No abuse of discretion; cross-examination limited consistent with Strickland analysis. |
| Whether Clausen’s 2003 rejection of G.A. as a placement was error and requires a new trial. | DF asserts Clausen’s non-relative rejection biased placement choices. | R.E.S. argues reasons for rejection were non-relational factors (housing, readiness, bond) and not due to bias. | No reversible error; reasons supported by record and best interests evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance—prejudice required)
- In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 (D.C. 2009) (adoption context; sets framework for effectiveness review)
- In re T.J., 666 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1995) (parental preference considerations in custody decisions)
- In re A.T.A., 910 A.2d 293 (D.C. 2006) (application of parental preference with best-interest analysis)
- In re An.C., 722 A.2d 36 (D.C. 1998) (bonding and suitability of relatives as guardians)
- In re T.W.M., 964 A.2d 595 (D.C. 2009) (factors regarding best interests and caretakers' relationships)
- In re Ja.J., 814 A.2d 923 (D.C. 2002) (caregiver suitability and historic bond considerations)
- In re C.T., 724 A.2d 590 (D.C. 1999) (evidence required to assess proposed caregivers’ fitness)
- In re F.N.B., 706 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1998) (weight of parental preference in custody determinations)
- In re L.W., 613 A.2d 350 (D.C. 1992) (child’s best interests govern termination decisions)